↓ Skip to main content

Protocol adherence for continuously titrated interventions in randomized trials: an overview of the current methodology and case study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Protocol adherence for continuously titrated interventions in randomized trials: an overview of the current methodology and case study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0388-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. Lauzier, N. K. Adhikari, A. Seely, K. K. Y. Koo, E. P. Belley-Côté, K. E. A. Burns, D. J. Cook, F. D’Aragon, B. Rochwerg, M. E. Kho, S. J. W. Oczkowksi, E. H. Duan, M. O. Meade, A. G. Day, F. Lamontagne, for ACCADEMY (Academy of Critical Care – Development, Evaluation, and Methodology)

Abstract

The standard definition for protocol adherence is the proportion of all scheduled doses that are delivered. In clinical research, this definition has several limitations when evaluating protocol adherence in trials that study interventions requiring continuous titration. Building upon a specific case study, we analyzed a recent trial of a continuously titrated intervention to assess the impact of different definitions of protocol deviations on the interpretation of protocol adherence. The OVATION pilot trial was an open-label randomized controlled trial of higher (75-80 mmHg) versus lower (60-65 mmHg) mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor therapy in shock. In this trial, potential protocol deviations were defined as MAP values outside the targeted range for >4 consecutive hours during vasopressor therapy without synchronous and consistent adjustments of vasopressor doses. An adjudication committee reviewed each potential deviation to determine if it was clinically-justified or not. There are four reasons for this contextual measurement and reporting of protocol adherence. First, between-arm separation is a robust measure of adherence to complex protocols. Second, adherence assessed by protocol deviations varies in function of the definition of deviations and the frequency of measurements. Third, distinguishing clinically-justified vs. not clinically-justified protocol deviations acknowledges clinically sensible bedside decision-making and offers a clear terminology before the trial begins. Finally, multiple metrics exist to report protocol deviations, which provides different information but complementary information on protocol adherence. In trials of interventions requiring continuous titration, metrics used for defining protocol deviations have a considerable impact on the interpretation of protocol adherence. Definitions for protocol deviations should be prespecified and correlated with between-arm separation, if it can be measured.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Master 3 11%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 12 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,436,330
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,891
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,754
of 283,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#34
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.